badmouthing our president
- Thread starter habilis
- Start date
edX
mac shaman
one of the things about this whole war on terrorism that scares the bejeezers out of many of us americans is that it is potentially another excuse for a new witch hunt. unknown enemies make potential enemies of everyone. especially when your own president is spouting rhetoric like "you're either with us or against us." at what point do i become an enemy of the state because i disagree with it? at what point does this become a step backwards to the days of the 'red scare'? at what point am i labeled the enemy because i believe more in humanity than nationalism?
and if any of that happens, are any of you who believe that freedom should be protected at all costs going to come to my aid? are you going to stand up for my rights or are you simply going to feel safer knowing that one less different opinion has been silenced?
btw - propaganda comes in all flavors.
and if any of that happens, are any of you who believe that freedom should be protected at all costs going to come to my aid? are you going to stand up for my rights or are you simply going to feel safer knowing that one less different opinion has been silenced?
btw - propaganda comes in all flavors.
Ugg
Registered
Habilis, I haven't mad myself clear. I'm not discussing the end result of WWI and WWII, but rather how they came to be. The Germans in trying to solidify and extend their new country (Germany didn't come into existence as a country until 1871) during WWI overextended their reach and lost. They were then penalized beyond belief and left impoverished by the treaty of Versailles. This once proud land of Wagner and Humboldt became the breeding ground of disenchantment in central Europe. Had the treaty of Versailles been less about penalizing and more about humane treatment. Hitler probably wouldn't have come to power. Hitler like GW came to power on a platform of restoring Germany to its rightful place in the world. He was all bluster and guts and as we all know to well full of nascent german nationalism.
Even though he was a scrawny little Austrian and not to offend any Austrians but Adolf's formative years were spent in Austria, not Germany, he was a very commanding presence. Even contemporary jewish accounts of his early years are full of awe of this little man.
He convinced the Germans that the only way for them to regain the glory of the German nation was to eliminate those who opposed it, those who ridiculed it and those too weak to oppose it.
He succeeded.
I am not saying that GW and Hitler are one and the same nor am I saying that the situations are the same. You, Habilis, are saying that we should learn from the past so am I. I just don't think that we should follow in the footsteps of Hitler, Stalin, Suharto and all the other despots this world has known. We supported all three of the above in the beginning. We even supported Saddam in the 80s.
But as with so many Americans you seem to think that the only way to achieve lasting to change is by destroying the existing structures and then rebuilding from scratch. I don't think we need to do it that way.
Even though he was a scrawny little Austrian and not to offend any Austrians but Adolf's formative years were spent in Austria, not Germany, he was a very commanding presence. Even contemporary jewish accounts of his early years are full of awe of this little man.
He convinced the Germans that the only way for them to regain the glory of the German nation was to eliminate those who opposed it, those who ridiculed it and those too weak to oppose it.
He succeeded.
I am not saying that GW and Hitler are one and the same nor am I saying that the situations are the same. You, Habilis, are saying that we should learn from the past so am I. I just don't think that we should follow in the footsteps of Hitler, Stalin, Suharto and all the other despots this world has known. We supported all three of the above in the beginning. We even supported Saddam in the 80s.
But as with so many Americans you seem to think that the only way to achieve lasting to change is by destroying the existing structures and then rebuilding from scratch. I don't think we need to do it that way.
toast
Gone !
So that's a list of socialist books...
1) André Glucksmann is an apolitic philosopher.
2) Tocqueville supported aristocracy at his time.
3) Dictionary of Twentieth Century Geopolitics and Geostrategy Issues is hardly a political book.
4) Theodor Adorno was more right-wing but his works are completely apolitic.
5) Moisei Ostrogorski is completely apolitic too.
6) Noam Chomsky is left-wing
7) Howard Zinn is left-wing.
8) Zbigniew Brzezinski is hardly left wing
That's two leftists out of 8 authors. May I add socialism wasn't a structured political tendency when Ostrogorski and Tocqueville lived, which makes it very hard for them to be socialists
I'm still waiting for the list of books you were 'looking back and seeing' when you wrote your post.
1) André Glucksmann is an apolitic philosopher.
2) Tocqueville supported aristocracy at his time.
3) Dictionary of Twentieth Century Geopolitics and Geostrategy Issues is hardly a political book.
4) Theodor Adorno was more right-wing but his works are completely apolitic.
5) Moisei Ostrogorski is completely apolitic too.
6) Noam Chomsky is left-wing
7) Howard Zinn is left-wing.
8) Zbigniew Brzezinski is hardly left wing
That's two leftists out of 8 authors. May I add socialism wasn't a structured political tendency when Ostrogorski and Tocqueville lived, which makes it very hard for them to be socialists
I'm still waiting for the list of books you were 'looking back and seeing' when you wrote your post.
Ugg
Registered
My personal recommendation would be de Toqueville. Although he is a snooty French aristocrat, he has a lot of very valid things to say about the US that stand true today. I believe that he even made it as far as Cleveland during his travels.
This recommendation comes strictly from my readings of American History. Sometimes the views of someone on the outside looking in are more valuable than those of an insider. This is not always the case but in de Toqueville's case it definitely is.
This recommendation comes strictly from my readings of American History. Sometimes the views of someone on the outside looking in are more valuable than those of an insider. This is not always the case but in de Toqueville's case it definitely is.
edX
mac shaman
Originally posted by doemel
something slightly OT:
did you guys realize that many of us are discussing about related issues in several threads at the same time? i spent half my day reading/posting instead of working
doemel - i'm guessing that you don't realize that some of us are not only debating these things in different threads, but also at another forum site. at least one of the threads there has the same name as one here. although it just got shut down for name calling as we briefly had to do with one yesterday as well.
but i'll have to admit, i'm running out of much new to add. i'm starting to feel like i've said my 'peace' and need to rest until more develops.
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
Originally posted by toast
I'm still waiting for the list of books you were 'looking back and seeing' when you wrote your post.
This kind of snooty elitist sarcasm is gettin old Jack. Your percieved intellectual superiority is getting offensive and this is the last time I'm going to respond to it. I almost feel bad for you thinking that you're better than anyone who didn't read those books.
Ed, I've said my peace too, this is getting tiring.
edX
mac shaman
habilis - i will give you this - offerring to read one of toast's books is more than i would be willing to offer. it was a gesture i had to respect. i agree he could have responded with more dignitity about it, even if it was a bit presumptious of you to assume they were all socialists from the authors names. its a bit like assuming all muslims are our enemies which seems to be a common sentiment among some americans right now (not saying you, but you know who i mean )
but maybe ugg's suggestion would be worth the effort if you're still inclined.
)but maybe ugg's suggestion would be worth the effort if you're still inclined.
Ugg
Registered
edX, I don't envy your job in this forum. I know you lean the same way I do but you are able to defuse things very well and I commend you for that. These forums only work if we are all able accept one another's differences. I know I have just had to stop looking at responses to certain threads or get out my flame thrower and obliterate everyone in sight and that isn't the answer. Anyway, thanks for allowing us to voice our opinions and your moderations have influenced me greatly and thanks for your approach.
edX
mac shaman
well thanks. but to be honest - self moderation is still my hardest chore. and in turn, i expect the same from everybody else. i think the best way to think about something before you post it is to think how you would respond if somebody else were saying it to you. i've caught myself more than once realizing that i'm not being as impersonal as i intended.
i feel that this issue is of great importance for us to have open for those of us who wish to discuss it. i think everyone must be approaching it with some sort of fear in their hearts. there are no easy answers to that fear. some want to be rid of it one way, some another. it's hard to say who is really right. i know what i believe and what seems right to me. and while i can't remember exactly who said it, someone pointed out that all who participate here at least have beliefs, have something to express and give thought to. i agree with that. i also believe it is part of the process that we start from an emotional point of reference and then move forward to more respectful and insightful conversation. i'm sure the events that are yet to come will take us thru this cycle over and over again in the near future. Let's hope we can all do so well as we have done so far.
also, it's often hard not to judge, but in the deepest parts of me, i know i have no right to. i am responsible to, and for, no one but myself.
i feel that this issue is of great importance for us to have open for those of us who wish to discuss it. i think everyone must be approaching it with some sort of fear in their hearts. there are no easy answers to that fear. some want to be rid of it one way, some another. it's hard to say who is really right. i know what i believe and what seems right to me. and while i can't remember exactly who said it, someone pointed out that all who participate here at least have beliefs, have something to express and give thought to. i agree with that. i also believe it is part of the process that we start from an emotional point of reference and then move forward to more respectful and insightful conversation. i'm sure the events that are yet to come will take us thru this cycle over and over again in the near future. Let's hope we can all do so well as we have done so far.
also, it's often hard not to judge, but in the deepest parts of me, i know i have no right to. i am responsible to, and for, no one but myself.
toast
Gone !
habilis: This kind of snooty elitist sarcasm is gettin old Jack. Your percieved intellectual superiority is getting offensive and this is the last time I'm going to respond to it. I almost feel bad for you thinking that you're better than anyone who didn't read those books.
Sorry if you feel offended by those hardcover things called books. They're just here to fill the gaps in our heads about history, about contemporary world problems and about mentalities. Hence, a good lecture could help to understand a bit more what's happening nowadays.
Tocqueville would be a good choice. Being an aristocrat at his time was a far more logical behavior than today, BTW And even though he was an aristocrat indeed, he had a major message of tolerance in his texts.
Sorry if you feel offended by those hardcover things called books. They're just here to fill the gaps in our heads about history, about contemporary world problems and about mentalities. Hence, a good lecture could help to understand a bit more what's happening nowadays.
Tocqueville would be a good choice. Being an aristocrat at his time was a far more logical behavior than today, BTW
And even though he was an aristocrat indeed, he had a major message of tolerance in his texts.
The actual problem right now is that if you compare the situation to 'Communism' and 'Nazism', it's the USA that form the problem. As I've mentioned several times before, we should move away from trying to solve terrorism by bombing countries that support terrorists and start solving the USA problem first, because for many terrorist activities (including the 9-11 incident), the USA is at the root of the problem. But as long as the US regime doesn't even _see_ that terrorism is the last straw people hang on to when faced with a problem as big as the USA-problem, there's nothing that can be done, I fear, from the inside. And now that the USA ignore the UN and the 'old Europe', it's going to be even more difficult.
I strongly hope that there is an active movement in the USA that sees the USA-problem and is willing to get their hands on it. If Bush fails again (like in Afghanistan), there might be a chance that the next president has a different name. I hope, for the sake of our world, that he'll also have a different background.
MDLarson
Registered
I don't understand this paranoia of George W. Bush. Granted, my beliefs as a Christian match up very close with Bush's as well as being a republican, so one could say "I'm on his side."
But, the way people are talking around here is that Bush is secretly plotting world domination or something, which contrasts sharply with (what I believe) is part of what motivates him: the idea that all people should live in freedom; I've heard enough of his speeches, and that's what it sounds like to me.
Maybe I'm just too blind to see the "USA-problem," as fryke stated, but I would place my paranoia on terrorism before I would on Bush. I've seen terror--I haven't seen the so-called Bush aggression.
But, the way people are talking around here is that Bush is secretly plotting world domination or something, which contrasts sharply with (what I believe) is part of what motivates him: the idea that all people should live in freedom; I've heard enough of his speeches, and that's what it sounds like to me.
Maybe I'm just too blind to see the "USA-problem," as fryke stated, but I would place my paranoia on terrorism before I would on Bush. I've seen terror--I haven't seen the so-called Bush aggression.
toast
Gone !
I am firmly convinced G.W. Bush has the impression to be involved in a fight for universal freedom, as you state.
But (and this is a big But), the fact is, that this very attentionate feeling combines with... eager economic interests. You know what I'm talking about.
Even though I do not consider G.W. Bush as the complete madman he's supposed to be according to pacifist posters, I still think he and his administration act very much like the Israeli administration - 'hawk' behavior. Which is a form of paranoia in the first place, before it changes into open aggressivity.
Hence, you are right to place your paranoia on terrorism rather than on Bush. I am sure you are very conscient not everyone is able to do that; maybe you could close your eyes a second, imagine you live in Bagdad and try to target your #1 paranoia.
Note: interesting quotes, interesting pictures about Iraq.
But (and this is a big But), the fact is, that this very attentionate feeling combines with... eager economic interests. You know what I'm talking about.
Even though I do not consider G.W. Bush as the complete madman he's supposed to be according to pacifist posters, I still think he and his administration act very much like the Israeli administration - 'hawk' behavior. Which is a form of paranoia in the first place, before it changes into open aggressivity.
Hence, you are right to place your paranoia on terrorism rather than on Bush. I am sure you are very conscient not everyone is able to do that; maybe you could close your eyes a second, imagine you live in Bagdad and try to target your #1 paranoia
.Note: interesting quotes, interesting pictures about Iraq.
Ugg
Registered
I've changed my Avatar to a picture of myself from when I was much younger. I did this because 50% of Iraqis are under the age of 18. There's a good chance that 50% of the casualties are also going to be under the age of 18, smart bombs or not. Also, depleted uranium is much more likely to affect the very young, the very old and the very ill. By using these WMD, GW is committing a large number of Iraqis to a slow and painful death.
I am not, I repeat, I am not standing up for Saddam. He has committed too many atrocities on his fellow Iraqis in the name of Iraq.
GW was not forced to use the weapons that he is choosing to use. He and his cohorts will be responsible for their deaths. What does his God, or yours, MD, have to say about that?
I am not, I repeat, I am not standing up for Saddam. He has committed too many atrocities on his fellow Iraqis in the name of Iraq.
GW was not forced to use the weapons that he is choosing to use. He and his cohorts will be responsible for their deaths. What does his God, or yours, MD, have to say about that?